peacefuljeffrey

The Bible?? Who reads that any more? The true source of all great truths is the encoded references in [URL "http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html"]Moby Dick[/URL] You're wrong, and you'll burn in hell for it. The TRUE TRUTH is encoded in Judy Blume's Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Now HOW can this statement POSSIBLY be made in earnest?! You (or anyone else) profess to know what has gone on in the minds of untrackable numbers of people who have read this book, enough to claim that most who read it end up believing in "god's unchanged message"? Is this done through some magical polling method that does not require people to actually inform you of their thinking? How do you know that there are not half a million people who have read the book and DIDN'T get convinced? On what basis is this claim made in the first place? What method of accounting for who was convinced and who was not was employed here? I read in a style guide that "authored" is just a fancy, useless substitute for "WROTE" and is used when people want to give extra needless flourish to their writing. To me, it comes across as really silly. A fancy dress on a pig. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And what's right, what's written in their hearts, is that the Christian theology is the final Truth. So you're asserting that anyone who believes fundamentally in Islam or Judaism is really, in their heart, lying to themselves and actually believes the Christian message. Nice. You don't manage to recognize this as religious fundamentalism, bigotry, and hypocrisy?? Interesting. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You were expecting intellectual honesty, openness, frank dialogue and validation of other views and opinions from a religious fundamentalist?! The whole thread was just a hit-and-run, "I'll tell you how it is and then close the discussion so you can't disprove me, or if you do, I won't even be aware of it" farce. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Whatever ANY total dictator does is "right" -- because a dictator defines what is "right." What a beautiful, non-disprovable catch-all. In other words, if sending you to hell because you were unlucky enough to have never been exposed to the gospel is "right," see ya, have fun in hell! Which would be a very fine substitute for whatever god uses to judge people who have heard the gospel. What the hell would be wrong with making things simple: you are judged by whether you did right or wrong? Whether you were a good person or an evil person? All of this religious CRAP that cites books and chapters and so and so saying blah blah blah is useless and stupid, and all used simply to justify the dominion that certain people claim over how the rest of the people should live. It is utterly unnecessary, and the world could live in peace and prosperity and goodness without all this clutter, confusion, contradiction, and complication. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, naturally, someone who claims to know EXACTLY the truth about God and the Bible will not entertain discussion or debate about the subject. That would threaten one's dominion over the absolute Truth. "All other versions are perversions." "Most of what is written (other people's views and opinions, I guess) is nothing but blasphemy." "I will delete any emails that are considered blasphemous toward God or Jesus Christ." These are the closed-minded, fundamentalist attitudes that have brought about burnings at the stake, wars, hatred, murder... and the irony is that it's all supposed to be about peace. To me, truly sickening. "I know all and won't entertain discussion with anything that might challenge my supreme knowledge." Sickening. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, again, this is making a decision based on too little information. The irony is that you'd have to have seen the movie up to that point to understand why the character walks away from the explosion -- not "unfazed," but "STOIC." You don't understand the character's motivation and psychology from that little snip in a trailer. If you hunger for justice, you should see the movie. It delivers justice. But again, I expect this thread to contain spoilers, so this is your warning to not view it if you want to eventually see the movie. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Can we all have a beer on PJ's tab???? Ask BendyWendy at Skydive Sebastian -- I am well covered for having brought beer. I owe beer to no one. Blue skies, -Jeffrey P.S. Don't judge how peaceful I am or am not if you haven't met me in person. Thinking you know someone just because of what he's said here is, well, really stupid. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I saw "Man on Fire" at the theaters when it was around, and it really resonated with me. I found particularly compelling the fact that Denzel Washington's character, Creasy, is utterly ruthless in his vengeance, and kills without mercy, young and old, man and woman. I see so much around in the world that I dislike, so much evil is perpetrated, and very rarely does anyone -- even a character in a movie -- exact true, final and uncompromising justice on evildoers. This movie was extremely gratifying in that respect. I am interested in what others thought of "Man on Fire." I put this here in Speakers Corner because I'm sure it will get controversial. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I like what Jim Mertens said: "If the criminals are going to have assault rifles, I should, too. Actually, can I have a better one than they do?" Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, neither. I think that this is the status quo for corporate news: do as much lying and slanting and biasing on behalf of leftism as you can, and when caught, deny until it blows over. The public will forget, and you can continue doing the same thing. I predict nothing will change. How much backlash against Rather do you sense is going on at this point? Me, I sense none. I think the leftist media will circle the wagons around him and he'll be largely left alone, except for Rush Limbaugh's justifiable rants. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Having the harness on does diminish for me the ballsiness of what Greg does. I sure as heck wouldn't attempt it! Now, what I don't understand is how the rig is attached to his arm under his shirt, but the photos show him hanging by his feet. I have to imagine that at some point he must disconnect the harness and free his hand to get higher on the rig (for toggles, etc.) Also, what on earth is there he could do if, say, he ended up with nasty line twist, or any kind of mal that would necessitate a cutaway/reserve activation?! Is this a "one-shot" deal, every time? How many jumps of this type has Greg done? It's amazing. My hat's off to the man, harness or no harness. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, come on, it wasn't that long ago that she had that show. I had to have been in my mid-twenties when it was on and I was finding it funny. And I do NOT find "body humor" funny. The skits were intelligently funny, as I recall. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I just read in an early Wednesday paper that the secretary for the dude who is supposed to have written the memos -- the woman who would have typed them -- says that she did NOT type THOSE memos, and knows she did not because they used terms and typography that were not in use by the Guard. She says that the gist of the text was possibly "accurate," but that these appear to be memos copied from originals. (Which leads one to inquire what might have been changed or reworded when the copying was done.) Either way, Rather and CBS and CNN have said they are GENUINE -- and since there is about 0.01% chance that they are in fact genuine, Rather's word (his INSISTENCE) on the authenticity of the documents is worth SHIT. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well shit -- how the hell were the French gonna pony-up when in order to do so they'd have to collect what Saddam had owed them?! You're surprised they opposed dethroning him? -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sure there is, but we are Americans. Why shouldn't we care about OUR nation first and foremost? I don't give a flying flip about my next door neighbor unless he's bothering me. I'll carry the analogy further and say that I live in a huge mansion on a massive tract of land, and my neighbor lives in a shanty on a postage stamp. Why should I care about his place when I have so much right here? That's a harsh statement and would piss me off (rightly so) if I heard it from your perspective, but that's how a lot of people feel about it, and I don't blame them. Doesn't sound like the neighborhood where I live. Nope. You and your wealthy neighbors probably have the local constable imprison the poor and homeless for things like "vagrancy" to keep the shiny sidewalks pristine. You probably don't have neighbors living in shanties on postage-stamp-sized tracts because you zoned the poor right out of your neighborhood. -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And they don't even have the pretense of a Constitutional right to those toys. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, thank you, and that underscores my point that I was using analogies. In fact, nowhere in your text above do you attempt to even say that I was not using what I said I was using. I was comparing the relationship of "degrees" between your example and my example. I can't figure out what you were trying to accomplish if not to point out that I was right. How did you look up the word "simile" and NOT find a definition that stipulates that a simile employs the word "LIKE"? Simile - a figure of speech in which one thing is likened to another, dissimilar thing by the use of like, as, etc. (ex.: a heart as big as a whale, her tears flowed like wine) (source, Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition) A metaphor, by the way, is a lot like a simile but does not employ the word "like," or "as" the way a simile does. "He is a workhorse on the jobsite." "She is a regular dynamo in bed!" These are not analogies, because they do not liken the relationship between one pair of things with the relationship between another pair. They are not similes because they don't use comparative words like "like." So once again, thanks for proving me right.

Those are analogies, not similes. And you scare remarkably easily. -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

OMFG look who showed up to call OTHER people shrill! LOL!! -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You didn't need to see the program in order to vote. Since you've stated that liberal bias in the mainstream media is a myth, you can rest assured that Blather made a fair 'n balanced presentation, right? Maybe you express opinions on programs you haven't seen, but I don't. LOmotherfuckin'L!!! That's EXACTLY what you did when I mentioned (in a gun thread) that I had seen a program where a guy fired all six rounds of a .38 Special revolver in under a second! YOU expressed skepticism that it was true, by sarcastically telling me that it must be true since I saw it on t.v. So much for you not passing judgment on programs you haven't seen, Kallend. You're about as consistent as a series of 1000 Lotto drawings. -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Now let's wait patiently as the first gun-grabbers come in and tell us how much more popular "extend the ban" was over "let the ban die" even though the poll admits that it is not scientific, and even though I was just there to vote for the second time... Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, I don't give a flying shit about whether you think I seem sincere or not. I told one person to fuck herself when she called me insincere after asking me to explain my meaning in a post and I sincerely did so -- so I won't say the same to you because it got me a two week ban with no warning. "Maybe some day we'll meet" blah blah blah... I suppose you want me to take this as a threat that you'll kick my ass or something for having an opinion that you don't like. Well isn't that just tough shit, huh? My apology was sincere; I still feel there was a large degree of FUCKUP on the part of the power company -- if not on the part of the actual linemen -- and my views were borne out by several prominent news articles in The Palm Beach Post; and I don't think my apology extends to those like you who call me a liar when I issue it. Ta ta. -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's only a matter of degree. Tear gas can kill if the victim is unable to get away or has respiratory problems. More disingenuousness from Kallend. Even amorous activity is "a matter of degree." I can fondle a lover's earlobe with a feather touch, or I can rip it off her head with only what, 6 pounds of pressure or something like that. So let's talk about the intent of using something like CS or OC, as opposed to sarin or mustard gas... Don't worry, reply as disingenuously as you like. It's not like I'm awaiting an argument made in good faith. -Jeffrey - You're just throwing dust in the air. The thread title says nothing about lethality; just "chemical weapons". Chemical weapons are used in the US routinely. I dunno... I am not sure I think of crowd-dispersal chemicals like pepper spray or teargas as "weapons." And I'm pretty sure that the thread was directed toward the KILLING use of INTENTIONALLY LETHAL chemicals on civilians -- not the rare and unintentional death that occurs from a severe reaction to teargas used on a riot. But you looooove to obfuscate, so... carry on. -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why, are you asking me out? Second time today soda came out of my nose courtesy of this board... You need to work on your drinking/reading timing, dude. Blue skies -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"